Submissions close on Thursday 19th July on the carbon zero bill.

Sorry I falsely stated that it was last Friday, so if you thought you had missed out you haven’t. You have another chance to get all and sundry in your house and on your farm to do a submission. Numbers count. Question 2 is the critical one. You have 3 choices.

CO2 only to reduce to net zero (not methane and nitrous oxide)

CO2 and nitrous oxide to reduce to net zero and methane to stabilize

CO2 and nitrous oxide and methane to all be reduced to net zero.

The Ministry is really confused on this because when methane is stable it is at net zero, so option 2 and 3 are the same really, but I suspect option 3, where the say reduce all greenhouse gases to net zero, they are talking about that ridiculous carbon unit and not greenhouse gas. Any way avoid confusion and choose option 1 or 2. Option 2 seems the most likely but option 1 is obviously better for farmers. There are also reasons why N2O should not reduce to zero simply because the nitrogen cycle is the most important cycle for human life and food production. There is a chance we one day may be fossils fuel free but we will always need food and we will always need the nitrogen cycle. Reducing nitrous oxide is also not that important.

Steve Cranston has started a petition calling for these self-described farming leaders to step up and lead on the issue of methane in the best interests of farmers, not against them as they have been doing for so long. The link to the petition is here https://chn.ge/2JfyGIS Numbers count once more and you have a chance to help here.

I have also sent a letter to Farmers Weekly in response to a shameful letter by Tim Mackie of Dairy NZ, which was full of misinformation. Honestly you dairy farmers why do you tolerate him? He is the enemy and continues to sell you out at every turn.

Dear Editor

I take issue with comments made by Dr Tim Mackie, Chief Executive of Dairy NZ, in a letter to the Editor he wrote in this paper responding to comments made by Brian Wrigley.

Dr Mackie claimed that methane when stabilized continued to cause warming and that if it was stabilized at reduced levels it would avoid that, and farmers needed to decide how much of a reduction there should be.

What Dr Mackie overlooked is that this applies to all greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are at net zero when they are at a point where any emission no longer causes the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas to increase. In the case of methane, net zero is reached when emissions are stabilized because any emission is offset by oxidation. In the case of CO2 net zero is reached when any CO2 emissions are offset by CO2 sequestration, such as from trees.

The goal of the government’s proposed carbon zero legislation is to get to net zero emissions so that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas is halted, it is not to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas to prevent any ongoing effects caused by the elevated atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas at the time of stabilsation.

Dr Mackie is proposing farmers do more than the Government itself proposes. He also is on a scientific limb by claiming benefits in reducing methane emissions for there is no scientific consensus on that. Dr Mackie also defends the current treatment of methane in international agreements which is a bizarre response. The current treatment of methane is wrong and there is no defence. Dairy NZ is one organization that should have been advocating for farmers on this issue but they have not been the farmer’s friend on this at all, quite the opposite in fact. They have been spreading misinformation on the impact of methane for over a decade now and this latest letter from Dr Mackie is just another example.